Cars

I have just read the earlier post on fast old car of the 60,s.
I think old american muscle cars are just great, I have seen a fair few on my trip so far, went to a classic car show in near Coeurd'Arlene last weekend. There were some real impressive machines on show.
How do the modern american models compare.
I am doing a road trip across western states meantime and was given a Chevy Impala, very smooth and mostly quiet, It does seem fairly quick to about 60 but not nearly a good as a Crysler 300 which I was given a few years ago, I really liked it.
My cars back home in Scotland are much different. My wife has a Renault Clio 1.5 turbo diesel producing about 85 hp, good I guess for just over 100mph but can see over 60 mpg just what we need with fuel at around $8.5 a gallon.
I recently bought a Mitsubish Showgun 4x4 with a 2.5 ltr diesel which might reach 95 on a very good day with the wind on her back and a train pushing it downhill (very slow lazy machine but it gets us out in the snow) best mpg 27.
My other car ( the one I love) is a 1997 Fiat Coupe 2 ltr 5 cylinder which produces 220hp. It doesnt weigh very much, manufactures claim 0-60 in just over 6 sec and top speed of 150 mph. I have never had it over 90 but regularly use all the power to accelerate and it does feel quick. Until recently my brother had a TVR with something like a 4.8 ltr engine and that was both quick and fast, I seem to remember 0-60 in around 4.3 and top speed way over 150. Certainly on the road it felt very impressive, unfortunately its difficult to find a road over here to do those speeds and police all around just waiting to catch use.
Bill

Bill:

Modern American performance cars such as the Corvette, V8 Camaro and Mustang, etc. are both faster and quicker than just about all of the muscle cars of the 1960s. They also use about half as much fuel.

There are several modern American performance cars that will turn 1/4 mile ETs below 12 seconds. Contrary to myth and legend, NO showroom stock 60s muscle cars (ignoring special production machines such as the 427 AC Cobra and L-88 Corvette, which are not technically "muscle cars") could break the 12 second barrier and few would break into the 13s.

That said, there is nothing like the SOUND of a 425 HP 409 Chevy at idle.

Dean

Bill, I will agree with you that there is nothing like American Muscle. Since you are touring here in the USA....Go test drive the NEW 2011 Ford F-350 Diesel. Oh Yea!!!!
Yes, I have been a truck man all my life there is nothing like this IMO, for a large pickup truck you will have a fun driving experience. This is the most impressive rig I have perched my butt in. Find a dealership out in the more rural areas where you can get up on the interstate and let her streach her legs out.
* Run along at 55or so then stomp the accelerator and feel the engine throw you into the back of the seat as the odometer is passing 80+++!
I do think you will have fun driving something that is not in your usual realm of rigs.
Have Fun!
Later,
John A.

Or at full power!!

i love the old muscle cars having owned several, [ '68 z-28 camero, 69 mustang gt had a corvette powered '38 chevy hot rod too] the cars were fast, but there probably are faster ones now, mainly due to advances in engine design and todays cars weighing half as much as the 60's cars i understand todays computer geeks can do some magic button stuff and increase the power on the new cars,me id rather spend a saturday changing a carb, cam and manifold to make power, i understand that, i dont understand todays computers nor to i care to,as mentioned the sound of a finely tuned big block chevy , cobra jet ford or 426 hemi at idle is awsome, never mind when it launches at the race track and no car today no mater how cool can reproduce that sound, just one of those things , im glad i got to be there

Sorry.

"... NO showroom stock 60s muscle cars ... could break the 12 second barrier ..." should read "... NO showroom stock 60s muscle cars ... could break the 13 second barrier ...."

Dean

Depends on whether you call a Camaro a pony or muscle car. 69 Camaro Z-28 in showroom trim would run mid 12's.

Absolutely not true.

Dean

(quoted from post at 21:58:55 07/25/10) Sorry.

"... NO showroom stock 60s muscle cars ... could break the 12 second barrier ..." should read "... NO showroom stock 60s muscle cars ... could break the 13 second barrier ...."

Dean

Click to expand...

True, I believe most were running low 13's at best. To get into the 12's you need some crazy gearing and some major HP in a muscle car.

"Handling was razor-sharp, aided by power steering that was both quick and had road feel. Four-barrel 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z28s could run the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 101 mph, but the small-block's shortage of low-end torque was multiplied with the dual-quads, which fed on sky-high revs. Even dropping the clutch at 4000 rpm produced stumble off the line."
Untitled URL Link

There were indeed a few '60's- early '70's era musclecars that would dip into the 13's- a Hemi or 440 Six-Pack Roadrunner or Super Bee, which hooked better than the 'Cuda or Challenger, a Cobra Jet Fairlane or Cyclone, LS6 Chevelle, L88 Corvette, or the sleeper and one of the fastest of the bunch, the GS455 Stage1 Buick, which could probably run a 13 with the A/C on, could all run a high 13 with stock tires and available optional gears. And the '69 Z28 didn't run anywhere near the 12's in stock form- it was quick for a 302, as was the Boss 302, but still a little engine in a car that wasn't that light. I have a few old Car & Driver magazines (that I bought new) with some comparison tests, wild one from '69 called "The Econo-Racers", six cars, a Hemi RR, 383 Super Bee, 396-375hp Chevelle, Fairlane Cobra and Cyclone CJ with 428 CJ's, and a GTO Judge, road, drag strip, braking, and road race course- RR took first by a slim margin over the Fairlane, then the Cyclone, Judge, Chevelle last- too bad they didn't include a GS400. Another from '68 was a Z-28 and a Tunnel Port 302, both set up with any option available from the factory, Z had the cross-ram, Tunnel Port inline 2x4, headers, and 4.10/4.11 gears with street tires, and Sam Posey driving- and both of those somewhat tweaked cars din indeed run high 12's. Another from '70 was a 340 Duster, Boss 302, LS6 Chevelle vs a stock, original early wire wheel, skinny tire 289 Cobra, again with Sam Posey driving- the Cobra won, but not by much
My own include a pair of '62 Galaxie 500XL's, one is an original black paint 406-405HP 3-deuce hardtop, manual steering & brakes as no power options with the solid lifter engines, now running a 2x4 427, C-6 with 4000 converter and 5.14 gears (jumps pretty good LOL) and a matching ragtop that's a 390 car (soon to be a 427 with a 3-deuce for looks). Also have a '69 R-code 428 CJ Ram-Air Fairlane Cobra and a '69 390 Ranchero GT to match, a '69 Mach1 that I bought from my dad in '73, a '66 428 T-Bird, and a half-finished '64 Falcon drag car, Alston tube chassis that will certify to 7.50 and a 514 SVO that will probably get switched out to a 505ci Genesis block "427" as those nasty old FE 427's are just more fun, and loud as he!! Have a total of 10 427's including the 505 and a couple 454ci strokers, two CJ's and an SCJ, so I can reload the Falcon and the other toys for a while- thinking seriously about one of those 454's with EFI and headers in the '66 Bird and quiet exhaust- here, Camaro hehehe
Just sold a '64 Fairlane Sports Coupe- anybody want a '66 Country Squire wagon? Got too many, something's gotta go

The Croozer Twin

3 friends had 69's, ran them at the local strip, all 3 ran under 13. They were showroom stock, and this was back in 1969. 2 brothers both had Camaros, both 69's one a Z-28, the other a SS396, can't tell you trap speed, but the Z ran a 12.6 and the SS ran a 13.2. I was there and I know the 2 were absolute showroon stock.

Roller Skate Falcon

Down 'n Dirty Bird

Love to have that Falcon !! Make me a heckova lawn roller . --- LOL
I had a Galaxy like that one I bought in Jersey while I was working there, Pa Cops liked it too when I went home on weekends. seems like they wantd to get a better look at it cause they said I drove too fast. I was much younger then and had to play with it .

THX For Pix

I am truly impressed with some of the new cars--and would agree that they are actually faster than virtually all of the "as produced" muscle cars of the 60's and very early 70's. But how many 21 year olds today can seriously consider BUYING on of the new muscle cars? Not many, I would guess, they are just too expensive, and the insurance on them would be incredibly expensive.

Back in the late 60's, the manufacturers produced hundreds of thousands of cars that would do the quarter mile in less than 15 seconds with the tires they came with. Those mostly fairly simple cars with large engines were inexpensive enough for young people to buy them. Some of the muscle cars were woefully under braked and most could be outhandled by almost anything produced today. But they sold like hotcakes, often making up very significant percentages of similar models production. Most of the modern muscle cars make up very low production percentages.

Lots of the old muscle cars had tires that were really inadequate for the amount of power the car had. My 67 GTO would spin most of the quarter mile with the stock tires. With the larger street tires that I put on it, it would turn consistent 13's. And with borrowed real drag slicks, it hooked up much better and turned in the 12's. Unfortunately we found that using the slicks was very hard on the rear end. It broke, and it was expensive to fix the problems. Was it fun to drive? Yeah, it was great! But gas mileage was terrible, it hated all but the best premium gas, and it was incredibly hard on rear tires. Luckily, at the time, gas was still cheap. Most of my friends, in their late teens and early 20's also drove muscle cars.

I wish I still had my old GTO, since it would be worth a LOT of money today. But I found that I really didn't need the huge power, and the cars I now drive get 3 times the mileage the Goat did and are a lot more comfortable to drive, especially long distances. Will I ever buy one of the new muscle cars? I doubt it. That time has passed, both for the country, and for me.

Must have been a 1/8 mile strip LOL
With headers, 4.88's and slicks maybe- showroom stock on E70-15's, sorry, ain't happening
That severely tweaked '68 in Car & Driver barely squeeked into the 12's, and it had the best factory-available off-road (NOT the Z-28 cam) cam & springs, the cross-ram, 4.10 gears, open tube headers, and fine-tuned by the factory to a gnat's behind, tended to by the factory rep. They were indeed a fun, hyper car to drive, but a dead stocker, as well as the Boss 302, were mid-14 second cars- until you messed with them, when either one was capable of running 12's with gears, tires, and tweaking. BTW, I have a completely stock and original '69 Boss 302 out back, I have tended to it since '74 for my old roommate, and another bud has a '70 that I built the engine for in '79 with 426 Hemi valves, spacer "NHRA cheater" Dykes rings and a Sullivan cam, still holding the same 60lbs oil pressure today and quite capable of running high 12's with gears and little slicks- here's tune-up day in the shop

My favorite car company produced an R3 super lark which did the 1/4 mile in less than 13 seconds (12.92 at 112 mph) The R3 Avanti was a little slower at over 13 seconds. Unfortunately only 1 super lark was sold as the attached article shows. Every time I read an article like this, i always wonder what things Studebaker would have accomplshed if they continued. www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2004/08/01/hmn_feature20.html

I believe they are talking 1/4 miles times - not 1/8 miles times.